Steve from Blue's Clues

deleted

If that's the case, then Kelvin is awesome, though I would be inclined to use Fahrenheit, only 0 Kelvin would also be 0 Fahrenheit.

Quote: Mission146

I think you should go with the coldest known temperature, Absolute Zero, make that one, make one degree less than that the new zero, and go from there.

Absolute zero is zero on the Kelvin Scale and it shouldn't be, it should be one, zero reflects either an absence or an impossibility. The temperature of -459.67F is certainly not absent, nor is it impossible.

Here's what we should do, you make one degree less than Absolute Zero, zero, convert Absolute Zero to one, call it whatever you want to, and start pre-heating our ovens to 810 degrees. I'm fine with that.

I'm gonna get the science nerds riled, but whatever...

Temperature, if we get away from common parlance and into technical aspects, is the measure of kinetic energy. Absolute Zero, AFAIK, is a theoretical thing that can't actually be achieved. But, if it were able, then the particles that make up the body would, in effect, cease moving. The kinetic energy would therefore be zero, as in, does not exist / would not be present.

Making A.Z. = 1 would infer that there is something there, which contradicts the definition.

(I love starting thermodynamic arguments =D)

Computer Programming uses arrays where the first element is in position 0. Pain in the backside if you ask me, for the number of 'off by one' errors I've had to deal with on my life.

deleted

Quote: thecesspit

Computer Programming uses arrays where the first element is in position 0. Pain in the backside if you ask me, for the number of 'off by one' errors I've had to deal with on my life.

You get used to it. As someone who has been programming since 1981, you eventually embrace it, and with it the love of zero.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

But absolute zero is the absence of any heat at all. Even 0.00000000000000000001K has SOME heat as super cold as it is. Absolute zero has never been reached.

At the risk of really getting off topic, I had a debate with a friend of mine, who is a Cal Tech graduate, about whether anything in the natural universe has infinite quantity. He claimed that it was possible to get below 0 Kelvin. He went onto say that for about a nanosecond the temperature was infinitely hot, and then cooled to something very hot. In other words, temperature is not on a linear scale, but a circle, crossing through infinity between very cold and very hot.

I demanded more evidence and haven't received any to this point. So, this is not a position I'm defending, but has anybody else even heard of it? I do know that wacky things happen with Bose Einstein condensates, but infinite temperature?

Quote: Wizard

You get used to it. As someone who has been programming since 1981, you eventually embrace it, and with it the love of zero.

I'm 12 years behind you... and with much less day-to-day usage of it... much of the languages I use now though I can iterate on the array itself, so don't care as much about it's index. And when I do care about the index, I'm probably don't explicitly use the index value, but am comparing it to another indexed List.

1. Array_name[0] is useful.
2. Do the Steve from Blue's Clues idea as a no cost loss to a big prop bet.

Quote: Wizard

I have a problem with it. If this forum were around in 1999 I assure you that there would be long debates about when the 21st century, or third millennium, begins. I remember the arguments, pro and con, well from that year an another forum I was on at the time. All that fuss could have been avoided if years started to be numbered with zero. It also shows mathematical ignorance to start counting at one.

Yes, it can be assumed she wanted the Altoid at least a one. One could argue she was at least at six or seven. However, why go down that slippery slope? I was trying to impart my opinion that scales should start at zero. At least she stayed on the 0 to 10 scale. Another annoyance of mine is when people go over ten. In another previous video I asked the same question and she said "one million." That she said "ten" this time showed she learned something about staying on the scale.

I'm also frustrated by people who use a 1-10 scale when values outside of the scale are not invalid (when 1 means "minimal interest" and not "no interest"). But, you could set any range you wanted as long as the first value on the scale was described as "no interest." You're setting the scale...You could tell her that 27 means "I don't want an Altoid" and 39 means "I want an Altoid more than life itself."

Wiz... you'll have to post a pic from age 13 to 16 frame. :P

Otherwise dead ringer.

Ibeatyouraces:

Didn't see the show, but most Bose-Einstein Condensates are studied at nano-Kelvins.
Of course the most interesting aspect is in inducing the "Bose-Nova". Wikipedia 'dat.

Face:
Almost no arguement. The mass would still exist, but as "dissociated matter"... (too) simply explained as matter without vibration
(again too simply explained as a loss of the wave-function). Or again explained as matter's most elemental paritcles without interaction.
Carry on!

Quote: Face

Temperature, if we get away from common parlance and into technical aspects, is the measure of kinetic energy. Absolute Zero, AFAIK, is a theoretical thing that can't actually be achieved. But, if it were able, then the particles that make up the body would, in effect, cease moving. The kinetic energy would therefore be zero, as in, does not exist / would not be present.

Quote: Wizard

At the risk of really getting off topic, I had a debate with a friend of mine, who is a Cal Tech graduate, about whether anything in the natural universe has infinite quantity. He claimed that it was possible to get below 0 Kelvin. He went onto say that for about a nanosecond the temperature was infinitely hot, and then cooled to something very hot. In other words, temperature is not on a linear scale, but a circle, crossing through infinity between very cold and very hot.

I demanded more evidence and haven't received any to this point. So, this is not a position I'm defending, but has anybody else even heard of it? I do know that wacky things happen with Bose Einstein condensates, but infinite temperature?

OK, so we really are off-topic for this thread, but I will continue in that direction. I have studied the thermal sciences a bit, but the realm near absolute zero is well outside anything I have studied thoroughly. "Absolute zero" makes an extremely good theoretical basis for some aspects of thermodynamics and heat transfer, but what happens when you get very close to it in reality is not something I can report with great confidence.

Heat transfer occurs naturally from higher temperature to lower temperature, so absolute zero provides a reference point at which no energy could be extracted from a system as heat. I have heard it said that the "no motion" description, as presented by Face, is not quite accurate, but I don't know enough to discuss that further. I do remember some discussions in a thermodynamics class as to how you would approach absolute zero in a physical system, since transferring energy out of the system by heat transfer would require you to have a heat sink at an even lower temperature. The answer that was given was that experiments are set up to chill a system to the lowest temperature possible while it is exposed to a magnetizing or ionizing field. Then the field is collapsed in a manner that energy is extracted as "work" not "heat". The result is still the same, and the system is left at a lower energy, lower temperature state.

I have never heard any suggestion that there is any way, even such "work" extraction, that would allow a system to achieve a temperature below absolute zero. While it is not unreasonable to say that temperature is not necessarily a linear scale, I might be inclined to think of it as an asymptotic scale, one by which you could approach absolute zero without ever actually reaching it. Prior to the Wizard's report about his Cal Tech friend, I have never heard the temperature scale described anything like a circle by which you might cross a boundary from absolute zero to a condition that is suddenly very hot. That sounds more like the science fiction scenarios in which someone disappears into a black hole and reappears in another location, completely un-crushed.

Okay, here is something on Wikipedia that discusses this jump from infinitely-hot to infinitely-low temperature: Absolute hot.

Quote: Wizard

Okay, here is something on Wikipedia that discusses this jump from infinitely-hot to infinitely-low temperature: Absolute hot.

This article doesn't discuss "going through" absolute zero though. You're right being your friend's skeptic.

As for Fahrenheit, the zero point is a 1:1 ratio of amonium chloride and water. The fact this was decided to be the zero point obviously makes Celsius or Kelvin superior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit

Long live the metric system! Let's catch up USA!!

Wizard,
Go for it.Dye your hair and the whole shabang.

Quote: Wizard

Okay, here is something on Wikipedia that discusses this jump from infinitely-hot to infinitely-low temperature: Absolute hot.

I guess if you are concerned about conditions that have only existed once ever, "about 10^-42 seconds after the big bang" according to the article, then maybe there are indeed some strange things that could go on. And that would be if you really believe people understand the details of what happened in the "big bang".

That article links to this one which discusses the possibility of a system with a negative temperature on the Kelvin scale, in contrast to my earlier post. That article does mention that such a condition is strictly a quantum phenomenon and is not possible in classical physics or classical thermodynamics, which are the only ones I have studied in any depth at all. It isn't clear to me whether the article is referring to macro systems or strictly subatomic phenomena, and I don't think it is likely to ever be of practical interest to me.

I have always thought you looked like Roger Rees.

I suck at posting photos, but check the google images in this link:

Quote: beachbumbabs

I have always thought you looked like Roger Rees.

I suck at posting photos, but check the google images in this link:

Wow, I clicked the link, and it showed some pictures of him & his 'partner'. I didn't even know he was gay. Then again, I'm not too surprised. He always seemed kind of gay when he was on Cheers. (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

In a statistics class I took, the professor used to say that a good graph should always include zero because it put the rest of the graph in perspective. One of the ways statistics can be distorted is by using a graph that is very jagged and seems to show a lot of movement when in reality the movement is actually miniscule to relevant measures in "real" life.

Wizard, speaking of people who look like you, do you have any relatives here in Vegas?

Because the other day, I saw a younger guy who looked a lot like you. I'm bad with ages, but he appeared to be in his late 20's or so. He was on the skinny side, looked about 6' tall, and I think I heard someone call him 'Andrew'. He could have easily passed for your younger brother or nephew.

Also, not to get off topic, but is our bet on for the 2016 election if/when Christie wins the GOP nomination? :)

Quote: Beethoven9th

Wizard, speaking of people who look like you, do you have any relatives here in Vegas?

Just my immediately family. The only other male in the family is my 11-year-old son.

Quote:

Also, not to get off topic, but is our bet on for the 2016 election if/when Christie wins the GOP nomination? :)

I don't understand the question.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: Beethoven9th

Mark my words, if Christie is the nominee in '16, he will be a guaranteed LOSER.

Will you lay 2 to 1 on that?

Quote: Wizard

Our bet would be contingent on Christie getting the GOP nomination. Otherwise, no action. Mailing the money will be fine. I'm looking to keep this small and friendly like your $100 against my $50.

Was just wondering because I'm game to put up $100 to win $50 if Christie wins the GOP nomination. It's kind of a dumb bet on my part, but I do think he'll be a loser. :)

Quote: Beethoven9th

Was just wondering because I'm game to put up $100 to win $50 if Christie wins the GOP nomination. It's kind of a dumb bet on my part, but I do think he'll be a loser. :)

I'm still not sure what you're asking, but here is my understanding of what happens under various outcomes:

Christie wins GOP nomination and loses national election: B9 wins $50.
Christie wins GOP nomination and wins national election: Wizard wins $100.
Christie doesn't run for or loses GOP nomination: No action.

Sounds to me as if (given a Christie nomination) the Wizard should have an immediate +EV situation available through hedging. Surely the professional books wouldn't give the Democratic nominee a 2:1 edge immediately after the Republican convention. Of course, the Wiz might just feel that the wager with B9 is too attractive to hedge on.

Quote: Doc

Of course, the Wiz might just feel that the wager with B9 is too attractive to hedge on.

I only hedge when huge amounts of money are at stake or the hedge bet itself is a good or neutral bet.

Personally, I wouldn't bet even money on Christie at this point, but getting 2 to 1 was too good to pass up. I maintain that since the television age, starting with the first televised debate in 1960, the more charismatic candidate has won every time in presidential elections. Anticipating that, I predict Christie will be on his best behavior the next three years and he'll keep his anger issues in check.

Either Biden or H. Clinton will be very beatable in 2016 as well.

Quote: Wizard

I'm still not sure what you're asking, but here is my understanding of what happens under various outcomes:

Christie wins GOP nomination and loses national election: B9 wins $50.
Christie wins GOP nomination and wins national election: Wizard wins $100.
Christie doesn't run for or loses GOP nomination: No action.

Yep, that's it! I'm willing to take the bet & accept these conditions.

What say you? Yes? No? Maybe? :)

Quote: Beethoven9th

What say you? Yes? No? Maybe? :)

I thought we already confirmed the bet, but, yes, we're on.

Great bet Wiz, as the polls stand now, Clinton would wup Christie in NJ. Christie is popular in NJ, but not popular enough to get the electoral votes. Cant win the Presidential election if you cant even take down your home state when it really counts.

Quote: Wizard

I thought we already confirmed the bet, but, yes, we're on.

Good deal. *thumbs up*

Quote: terapined

Great bet Wiz, as the polls stand now, Clinton would wup Christie in NJ. Christie is popular in NJ, but not popular enough to get the electoral votes. Cant win the Presidential election if you cant even take down your home state when it really counts.

What are you talking about? If Clinton beats Christie, then *I* win the bet. lol...

Quote: Beethoven9th

Good deal. *thumbs up*


What are you talking about? If Clinton beats Christie, then *I* win the bet. lol...

Once again the stoner in me miss reads a post. You are right B9th